Skip to comments.Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD [Global Warming]
Posted on 04/25/2007 12:41:58 AM PDT by Omega Man II
Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD
· Climate scientists say film misleads public · Wag TV producers reject 'contemptible gag attempt'
David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday April 25, 2007
Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.
(Excerpt) Read more at environment.guardian.co.uk ...
Durkin should just fix the documentary and release it.
There are two problems with the documentary:
- “That volcanoes emit more CO2 than man” - Not true - Just change it to “natural sources” emit over 20 times as much CO2 as man - True
- “The satellites do not show an increase in temperatures” - The MSU satellites of the NOAA used to show no real change in lower troposphere temperatures (as would be expected with global warming) but the satellites were found to have a few processing errors and have now been corrected showing a small warming (about half of what the global warmers are predicting);
Other than that, it is primarily factual.
Some argue that the temperature chart showing cooling from 1940 to 1975 is not accurate. Well it is accurate if you use the actual temperature measurements (versus the global warmer’s adjusted temperature trendline which has adjusted the raw data about 4 times now so that it shows global warming.)
Now compare that to Al Gore’s fabrication which is being forced on nearly every school child.
Just had time for a quick reply. Do you oppose me posting a confirmation of factual information, just because it goes against what some people would want reality to be?
It's a shame that liberals always have to resort to trying to shut people up in order to avoid having their ideas exposed as a fraud.
I don’t know the chemistry (though I should), but I can tell you if you need to lower the alkalinity in your pool the easiest way to do it is to raise the temps and aerate. What you also find out when you own a swimming pool is that there is a tenuous connection between alkalinity and pH. They are related but not directly. We often have a 200+ Alk reading and a pH of 6-6.5 at the same time, which technically would seem to be impossible, but I can attest to the fact it isn’t.
For years we tried to balance that out by adding Bicarb or borax to raise the pH, but would end up with an over the top Alk. reading (less so with the borax). Then we would add acid to bring down the Alk reading and the pH would plummet. Since learning this little secret of heat and aeration we have brought the Alk. down from close to 230ppm to 100 or less in 3-4 days without adding chemicals and without screwing up the pH.
Thanks for the charts!
Nothing funnier than an elephant with fleas crawling up her belly; swat, crash; swat, crash...
Agreed...and I'd extend that to both sides, of this debate and others.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Riiight. "Both sides do it," eh? Bill O'Reilly, is that you?
I was using it within the chemical context of the pH scale. I was speaking in terms of a pH value of 7.0 being neutral, with values under 7.0 being acidic, and above 7.0 alkaline.
Happy to help.
The liberals will drink what they always drink...............Kool-Aid :)
Then sometimes you live in a fantasy world.
What are the values and how do I verify them? There is a lot of contradictory info out there.
See point #5 in my profile. CO2 solubility in seawater does not cause this observation.
Actually, markedly incorrect -- one of numerous points on which the program was egregiously in error. See point #5 in my profile.
Are you getting that from Zbigniew?
The older ice core data is congruent with the newer ice core data (different sites) and shows that at the end of the Younger Dryas -- official initiation of the Holocene -- CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. Anything substantially above that (+15 ppm or higher) until "agriculturalization" in the early 1700s, when there was the beginning of increase due to land-use alteration, should be discarded as incorrect.